Legal Opinion
Arundel Corp. v. United States
District Court, E.D. New York
Decided November 16, 1944No. A 16842PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MOSCOWITZ, District Judge.
Libelant excepts to the sufficiency of Article “Fifteenth” of respondent’s answer. The libel was for damage caused by the P. T. 43, a public vessel of the United States, and is concededly filed pursuant to the Public Vessels Act, Mar. 3, 1925, c. 428, 43 Stat. 1112, 46 U.S.C.A. § 781 et seq. Article “Fifteenth” sets forth in answer and as a separate defense that the P. T. 43 was lost prior to the time when the libel was filed and that, therefore, “the subject-matter of this suit is not within the jurisdiction of this court.”
The issue resolves itself into a question…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- United States v. SherwoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Neirbo Co. v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1939
- Eastern Transportation Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1927
- Maine v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1943
- Edgewater Realty Co. v. Tenn. Coal, Iron & Railroad Co.District Court, D. Maryland · 1943
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Rutland Railway Corporation v. Brotherhood of Locomotive EngineersCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1962
- McCarley v. Foster-Milburn Co.District Court, W.D. New York · 1950
- Rutland Railway Corporation v. Brotherhood of Locomotive EngineersCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1962
- In Re: National Park Service and Public Vessels Buoy Tender No. 450, No. 257, No. 2510, No. 256, No. 2511, No. 290District Court, D. Utah · 2020